Post on 22-May-2020
transcript
WA7890008967
Hanford Facility RCRA Permit Dangerous Waste Portion
Change Control Log Integrated Disposal Facility
INTEGRATED DISPOSAL FACILITY CHAPTER 5.0
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
CHANGE CONTROL LOG
Change Control Logs ensure that changes to this unit are performed in a methodical, controlled,
coordinated, and transparent manner. Each unit addendum will have its own change control log with a
modification history table. The “Modification Number” represents Ecology’s method for tracking the
different versions of the permit. This log will serve as an up to date record of modifications and version
history of the unit.
Modification History Table
Modification Date Modification Number
06/30/2010
WA7890008967
Hanford Facility RCRA Permit Dangerous Waste Portion
Change Control Log Integrated Disposal Facility
This page intentionally left blank.
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.ii
1 2
3
This page intentionally left blank. 4
5
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.iii
1
CHAPTER 5.0 2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING 3
4
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS 6
5.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING ............................................................................................. 5 7
5.1 Exemption from Groundwater Protection Requirement ................................................................ 5 8
5.2 Interim Status Period Groundwater Monitoring Data ................................................................... 5 9
5.3 Aquifer Identification .................................................................................................................... 5 10
5.3.1 Geology of the IDF Site ................................................................................................................ 5 11
5.3.1.1 Structural Framework .................................................................................................................... 6 12
5.3.1.2 Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................... 6 13
5.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 8 14
5.4 Contaminant Plume Description ................................................................................................... 9 15
5.4.1 Groundwater Contamination ......................................................................................................... 9 16
5.4.2 Vadose Zone Contamination ......................................................................................................... 9 17
5.5 Detection Monitoring Program ................................................................................................... 10 18
5.5.1 Indicator Parameters, Waste Constituents, Reaction Products to be Monitored ......................... 10 19
5.5.1.1 Regulated Constituents ................................................................................................................ 10 20
5.5.1.2 Monitoring Parameters ................................................................................................................ 10 21
5.5.1.3 Dangerous Waste Characterization ............................................................................................. 11 22
5.5.1.4 Behavior of Constituents ............................................................................................................. 11 23
5.5.1.5 Detectability ................................................................................................................................ 12 24
5.5.2 Groundwater Monitoring Program .............................................................................................. 12 25
5.5.2.1 Description of Wells .................................................................................................................... 12 26
5.5.2.2 Equipment Decontamination ....................................................................................................... 13 27
5.5.2.3 Representative Samples ............................................................................................................... 13 28
5.5.2.4 Locations of Background Groundwater Monitoring Wells that are not Upgradient ................... 13 29
5.5.3 Background Values ..................................................................................................................... 13 30
5.5.3.1 Plan for Establishing Groundwater Quality Data ........................................................................ 13 31
5.5.4 Sampling, Analysis and Statistical Procedures ........................................................................... 14 32
5.5.4.1 Sample Collection ....................................................................................................................... 14 33
5.5.4.2 Sample Preservation and Shipment ............................................................................................. 15 34
5.5.4.3 Analytical Procedures ................................................................................................................. 15 35
5.5.4.4 Chain of Custody ......................................................................................................................... 16 36
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.iv
5.5.4.5 Additional Requirements for Compliance Point Monitoring ...................................................... 17 1
5.5.4.6 Annual Determination ................................................................................................................. 18 2
5.5.4.7 Statistical Determination ............................................................................................................. 18 3
5.5.5 Compliance Monitoring Program ................................................................................................ 21 4
5.5.6 Corrective Action Program ......................................................................................................... 22 5
5.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 35 6
7
FIGURES 8
Figure 5.1. Location of the IDF and Nearby Boreholes ............................................................................. 23 9
Figure 5.2. Geologic Map of the 200 East and 200 West Areas and Vicinity ........................................... 24 10
Figure 5.3. Stratigraphy of the Hanford Site .............................................................................................. 25 11
Figure 5.4. Cross-Section through the IDF Site ......................................................................................... 26 12
Figure 5.5. Water Table Map for the Hanford Site 200 East Area ............................................................ 27 13
Figure 5.6. Hydrographs for Wells Near the IDF Site ............................................................................... 28 14
Figure 5.7. Concentration versus Time for Nitrate in Wells 299-E24-7 and 299-E24-18 ......................... 29 15
Figure 5.8. Sequence for Installation of Downgradient Monitoring Wells at the IDF............................... 30 16
17
TABLES 18
Table 5.1. Water Levels in Groundwater Wells in the Vicinity of the IDF Site ........................................ 31 19
Table 5.2. Monitored Constituents for the IDF .......................................................................................... 31 20
Table 5.3. Expected Behavior of Selected Regulated Constituents/Materials for the IDF ........................ 32 21
Table 5.4. Analytical Methods and Method Detection Limits for Regulated Constituents and 22
Indicator Parameters ................................................................................................................. 34 23
24
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.5
5.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 1
The Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) will be an Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 2
(RCRA)-compliant landfill (i.e., a double lined trench with leachate collection system). This chapter 3
describes the groundwater monitoring plan for the IDF and addresses the requirements of RCRA, as 4
described in 40 CFR 264, Subpart F, by reference of WAC 173-303-645(3). Figure 5.1 shows the 5
location of the IDF and surrounding groundwater wells in the 200 East Area. This chapter is designed to 6
meet final status detection-level groundwater monitoring requirements for the IDF. This groundwater 7
monitoring plan is based on the application of a modified data quality objectives (EPA QA/G-4) process 8
to a conceptual model, and the most recent evaluations of groundwater hydrology and chemistry at the 9
site. 10
This plan describes the characteristics of the waste to be disposed in the IDF and the site geology and 11
hydrology used to design and operate the monitoring well network and to interpret the groundwater data. 12
The historic groundwater chemistry from wells near the IDF site is provided. Much of the information 13
pertaining to waste characterization is taken from HNF-4921 and that pertaining to hydrogeology from 14
PNNL-11957, PNNL-12257, PNNL-13652, and PNNL-14029. 15
The plan includes a description of network well locations, well construction, sample constituents, and 16
sampling frequency for detection-level groundwater monitoring. Procedures for determination of 17
compliance point groundwater quality also are included. Finally, this plan provides the basis for rapid 18
development of a compliance monitoring plan if a validated exceedance of an indicator parameter is 19
found. This plan controls initial baseline monitoring and subsequent detection level monitoring only for 20
the IDF. 21
Source, special nuclear, and byproduct materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 22
amended, are regulated at the United States Department of Energy (DOE) facilities exclusively by DOE 23
acting pursuant to its AEA authority. These materials are not subject to regulation by the State of 24
Washington. All information contained herein and related to, or describing AEA-regulated materials and 25
processes in any manner may not be used to create conditions or other restrictions set forth in any permit, 26
license, order, or any other enforceable instrument. DOE asserts that pursuant to the AEA, it has sole and 27
exclusive responsibility and authority to regulate source, special nuclear and by-product materials at 28
DOE-owned nuclear facilities. Information contained herein on radionuclides is provided for process 29
description purposes only. 30
5.1 Exemption from Groundwater Protection Requirement 31
An exemption is not requested. 32
5.2 Interim Status Period Groundwater Monitoring Data 33
The IDF will be a new facility constructed in the 200 East Area. Interim status groundwater monitoring is 34
not applicable. 35
5.3 Aquifer Identification 36
The following sections discuss geology and hydrology. 37
5.3.1 Geology of the IDF Site 38
The 200 East Area lies on the Cold Creek bar, a geomorphic remnant of the cataclysmic, glacial related 39
floods of the Pleistocene Epoch. As the floodwaters raced across the lowlands of the Pasco Basin and 40
Hanford Site, floodwaters lost energy and began to deposit sand and gravel. The 200 Area Plateau is one 41
of the most prominent deposits. The 200 Area Plateau lies just southwest of one of the major flood 42
channels across the Hanford Site that forms the topographic lowland south of Gable Mountain. 43
Borehole data provide the principal source of geologic, hydrologic, and groundwater information for the 44
200 East Area and the IDF site. 45
46
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.6
Numerous boreholes (both vadose zone boreholes and groundwater monitoring wells) have been drilled in 1
the 200 East Area for groundwater monitoring and waste management studies (Figure 5.1 shows the 2
location of groundwater wells near the IDF site.) However, data are limited within the IDF site primarily 3
because no previous construction or waste disposal activities have occurred in this part of the Hanford 4
Facility. Most boreholes in the 200 East Area have been drilled using the cable tool method and either a 5
hard tool or drive barrel to advance the hole. Some boreholes have been drilled by rotary and wire line 6
coring methods. More recently, boreholes in the area have been drilled, and in five cases cored, by 7
percussion hammer methods. Geologic logs are based on examination of drill core, chips, and cuttings 8
from these boreholes. Chip samples typically are taken at 1.5-meter intervals and routinely archived at 9
the Hanford Geotechnical Sample Library. 10
5.3.1.1 Structural Framework 11
The IDF site will be located south of the Gable Mountain segment of the Umtanum Ridge anticline and 12
about 3 kilometers north of the axis of the Cold Creek syncline, which controls the structural grain of the 13
basalt bedrock and the Ringold Formation. The basalt surface and Ringold Formation trend roughly 14
southeast-northwest parallel to the major geologic structures of the site. As a result, the Ringold 15
Formation and the underlying Columbia River Basalt Group gently dip to the south off the Umtanum 16
Ridge anticline into the Cold Creek syncline. 17
Geologic mapping on the Hanford Site and examination of drill core and borehole cuttings in the area 18
have not identified any faults in the vicinity of the IDF site (DOE/RW-0164). The closest known faults 19
are along the Umtanum Ridge-Gable Mountain structure north of the disposal site and the May Junction 20
fault east of the site (Figure 5.2). 21
5.3.1.2 Stratigraphy 22
The basalt and post-basalt stratigraphy for the IDF site is shown in Figure 5.3. Approximately 137 to 167 23
meters of suprabasalt sediments overlie the basalt bedrock at the site. 24
Basalt Bedrock. Previous studies (RHO-BWI-ST-14; Reidel and Fecht 1994) have shown that the 25
youngest lava flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group at the 200 East Area are those of the 26
10.5 million year old Elephant Mountain Member. This member underlies the entire 200 East Area and 27
surrounding area and forms the base of the suprabasalts aquifer. No erosional windows in the basalt are 28
known or suspected to occur in the area of the IDF site. 29
Ringold Formation. Few boreholes penetrate the entire Ringold Formation at the IDF site so available 30
data are limited. The Ringold Formation reaches a maximum thickness of 95 meters on the west side of 31
the site and thins eastward. The member of Wooded Island (Figure 5.3) is the only member of the 32
Ringold Formation in the 200 East Area. The deepest Ringold Formation unit encountered is the lower 33
gravel, unit A. Lying above unit A is the lower mud unit and overlying the lower mud unit is upper 34
gravel, unit E. The sand and silt units of the members of Taylor Flat and Savage Island of the Ringold 35
Formation are not present at the IDF site. Unit A and unit E are equivalent to the Pliocene-Miocene 36
continental conglomerates (Reidel and Fecht 1994). The lower mud unit is equivalent to the 37
Pliocene-Miocene continental sand, silt, and clay beds (Reidel and Fecht 1994). 38
Only three boreholes have penetrated unit A in the area of the IDF site. Unit A is 19 meters thick on the 39
west side of the site and thins to the northeast. Unit A is partly to well cemented conglomerate consisting 40
of both felsic and basaltic clasts in a sandy matrix and is interpreted as a fluvial gravel facies 41
(Lindsey 1996). There are minor beds of yellow to white interbedded sand and silt. Green colored, 42
reduced-iron stain is present on some grains and pebbles. Although the entire unit appears to be 43
cemented, the zone produced abundant high quality water in borehole 299-E17-21 (PNNL-11957). 44
Nineteen meters of the lower mud unit were encountered in one borehole at the IDF site (PNNL-11957). 45
The upper most 1-meter or so consists of a yellow mud to sandy mud. The yellow mud grades downward 46
into about 10 meters of blue mud. The blue mud, in turn, grades down into 7 meters of brown mud with 47
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.7
organic rich zones and occasional wood fragments. The lower mud unit is absent in the center of the site 1
(northeast of borehole 299-E24-7 on Figure 5.4). 2
Unit E is described as a sandy gravel to gravelly sand. Unit E is interpreted to consist of as much as 3
15 meters of conglomerate with scattered large pebbles and cobbles up to 25 centimeters in size in a 4
sandy matrix. The gravel consists of both felsic and basaltic rocks that are well rounded with a sand 5
matrix supporting the cobbles and pebbles. Cementation of this unit ranges from slight to moderate. 6
The upper contact of unit E is not identified easily at the IDF site. In the western part of the study area, 7
unconsolidated gravels of the Hanford formation directly overly the Ringold Formation unit E gravels, 8
making exact placement of the contact difficult. The dominance of basalt and the absence of cementation 9
in the Hanford formation are the key criteria used to distinguishing these (PNNL-11957). In the central 10
and northeast part of the area, unit E has been eroded completely. Unconsolidated gravels and sands 11
typical of the Hanford formation replace unit E. 12
Unconformity at the Top of the Ringold Formation. The surface of the Ringold Formation is irregular 13
in the area of the IDF site. A northwest-southeast trending erosional channel or trough (the Columbia 14
River/Missoula flood channel) is centered through the northeast portion of the site. The trough is deepest 15
near borehole 299-E24-21 in the northern part of the site (PNNL-13652). This trough is interpreted as 16
part of a larger trough under the 200 East Area resulting from scouring by the Missoula floods. Borehole 17
299-E17-21, located at the southwest corner of the IDF site, is at the west side of the channel where 18
approximately 46 meters of Ringold Formation have been removed and replaced by Hanford formation 19
gravels. Boreholes 299-E17-25 and 299-E17-23, located along the southeastern edge of the Site, are near 20
the deepest portion of the channel where it is interpreted that almost all of the Ringold Formation has 21
been eroded. At this location, the water table in the channel is interpreted to be 52 meters above the 22
basalt, which forms the floor of the channel. The surface of basalt rises to the north where the water table 23
is approximately 27 meters above the basalt at the northeast corner of the site near borehole 299-E24-21. 24
Hanford formation. The Hanford formation is as much as 116 meters thick in and around the IDF site. 25
The Hanford formation thickens in the erosional channel cut into the Ringold Formation and thins to the 26
southwest along the margin of the channel. 27
At the IDF site, the Hanford formation consists mainly of sand dominated facies with lesser amounts of 28
silt dominated and gravel dominated facies. The Hanford formation has been described as poorly sorted 29
pebble to boulder gravel and fine- to coarse-grained sand, with lesser amounts of interstitial and 30
interbedded silt and clay. In previous studies of the site (WHC-MR-0391), the Hanford formation was 31
described as consisting of three units: an upper and lower gravel facies and a sand facies between the two 32
gravelly units. The upper gravel dominated facies appears to be thin or absent in the immediate area of 33
the IDF site (PNNL-12257, PNNL-13652, and PNNL-14029). 34
The lowermost part of the Hanford formation encountered in boreholes at the IDF site consists of the 35
gravel-dominated facies. Drill core and cuttings from boreholes 299-E17-21, 299-E17-22, 299-E17-23, 36
299-E17-25, and 299-E24-21 indicate that the unit is a clast-supported pebble- to cobble gravel with 37
minor amounts of sand in the matrix. The cobbles and pebbles almost are exclusively basalt with no 38
cementation. This unit pinches out west of the IDF site and thickens to the east and northeast 39
(Figure 5.4). The water table beneath the IDF site is located in the lower gravel unit. The lower gravel 40
unit is interpreted to be Missoula flood gravels deposited in the erosional channel carved into the 41
underlying Ringold Formation. 42
The upper portion of the Hanford formation consists of at least 73 meters of fine- to coarse-grained sand 43
with minor amounts of silt and clay and some gravelly sands. 44
Holocene Deposits. Holocene, eolian deposits cover the southern part of the IDF site. Caliche coatings 45
on the bottom of pebbles and cobbles in drill cores through this unit are typical of Holocene caliche 46
development in the Columbia Basin. 47
The southern part of the IDF site is capped by a stabilized sand dune. The eolian unit is composed of 48
fine- to coarse-grained sands with abundant silt, as layers and as material mixed with the sand. 49
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.8
Clastic Dikes. A clastic dike was encountered in borehole C3828, adjacent to well 299-E17-25, at the 1
IDF site. Clastic dikes also have been observed in excavations surrounding the site [e.g., US Ecology, the 2
former Grout area, the 216-BC cribs, the Central Landfill, and the Environmental Restoration Disposal 3
Facility (BHI-01103)]. In undisturbed areas, such as the IDF site, clastic dikes typically are not observed 4
because these are covered by windblown sediments. The occurrence of a clastic dike in borehole C3828 5
suggests that these probably are present elsewhere in the subsurface at the disposal site. The IDF 6
excavation will be geologically mapped to document the occurrence of any clastic dikes that may exist at 7
the site. 8
5.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology 9
The unconfined aquifer under the IDF site occurs in the fluvial gravels of the Ringold Formation and 10
flood deposits of the Hanford formation. The thickness of the aquifer ranges from about 70 meters at the 11
southwest corner of the site to about 30 meters under the northeast corner of the IDF site. The Elephant 12
Mountain Member of the Columbia River Basalt Group forms the base of the unconfined aquifer 13
(Figure 5.4). 14
The unsaturated zone beneath the land surface at the IDF site is approximately 100 meters thick and 15
consists of the Hanford formation. The water level in boreholes in and around the site indicates that the 16
water table is in the lower gravel sequence of the Hanford formation and at an elevation of approximately 17
123 meters above sea level. The water table is nearly flat beneath the IDF site. Table 5.1 gives water 18
level information from wells near the site. The locations of the wells are shown on Figure 5.1. The latest 19
water table map shows less than about 0.1 meter of hydraulic head differential across the IDF site 20
(Figure 5.5). 21
The Ringold Formation lower mud unit occurs within the aquifer at the southwest corner of the IDF site 22
(299-E17-21) but is absent in the central and northern parts of the site (299-E24-7 and 299-E24-21). The 23
lower mud unit is known to be a confining or partly confining layer at places under the Hanford Site 24
(PNNL-12261) and this might be the case under the southwest corner of the IDF site. Groundwater 25
samples were collected and analyzed from above and below the lower mud unit during drilling of well 26
299-E17-21. Chemical parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, and Eh) were different in the two samples 27
suggesting that the lower mud is at least partly confining in the area. No contamination was found above 28
or below the lower mud. An interpretation of the distribution and thickness of this stratum is shown in 29
Figure 5.4. The surface of the lower mud unit is interpreted to dip gently to the southwest 30
(PNNL-13652). 31
Hydrographs for selected wells near the IDF site are shown in Figure 5.6. Although the water table is 32
extremely flat in the area of the IDF, hydrographs suggest that groundwater flow has had an easterly 33
component throughout the 1990s and has not significantly changed due to cessation of discharges to the 34
216-B Pond system. Hydrographs for the older wells (299-E23-1, 299-E23-2, and 299-E24-7) show two 35
maxima in the water level. These coincide with the operation of the PUREX Plant, which operated 36
between 1956 and 1972 and between 1983 and 1988. All the hydrographs show a decline in the water 37
table during recent years. The rate of decline is between 0.18 and 0.22 meter per year and will take 38
between 10 and 30 years to stabilize. The reason for the decline is the cessation of effluent discharge to 39
the 216-B Pond System, which is centered northeast of 200 East Area. Based on hindcast water table 40
maps (BNWL-B-360), the water table is expected to decline another 2 to 7 meters before reaching 41
pre-Hanford Site elevations. The cessations of effluent discharge also are responsible for changes in the 42
direction of groundwater flow across much of the 200 East Area. 43
Groundwater flow beneath the IDF site recently was modeled to be southeasterly (PNNL-13400). This 44
direction differs from the easterly direction predicted by the analysis of WHC-SD-WM-RPT-241 and 45
other earlier reports. The southeasterly flow direction primarily is attributable to inclusion of the highly 46
permeable Hanford formation sediments in the ancestral Columbia River/Missoula flood channel in the 47
analysis. A southeasterly flow direction is reflected in the geographic distribution of the regional nitrate 48
plume and in the distribution of other constituents under the south-central 200 East Area 49
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.9
(PNNL-14187, 1 of 2, 2 of 2). As stated in PNNL-13404 (1 of 2, 2 of 2), the water table gradient is too 1
low to be used for determining flow direction or flow rate at the PUREX Plant cribs immediately east of 2
the IDF site. 3
Hydraulic conductivity directly beneath the IDF site was estimated from data collected during four slug 4
tests at well 299-E17-21 and five slug tests of 299-E24-21. The interval tested at 299-E17-21 was the 5
upper 7.8 m of the unconfined aquifer from 101.3 to 109.1 m depth. That portion of the aquifer is 6
Hanford formation gravel from 101.3 to 102.1 m depth and Ringold Formation unit E gravels from 102.1 7
to 109.1 m depth (PNNL-11957). The interval tested at well 299-E24-21 was entirely in the Hanford 8
formation gravel sequence between 95.2 and 101.3 m depth. The best fit value to the data from 9
299-E17-21 indicated a hydraulic conductivity of about 68.6 meters per day (PNNL-11957) and from 10
299-E24-21 suggested a hydraulic conductivity of 75 meters per day (PNNL-13652). 11
5.4 Contaminant Plume Description 12
Although no groundwater monitoring has been done for the IDF, groundwater monitoring has been done 13
in support of RCRA permitting activities and in support of other activities in the area. The results of that 14
monitoring show that a regional nitrate plume exists beneath the IDF site (PNNL-14187, 1 of 2, 2 of 2). 15
In the south-central 200 East Area, the plume extends in a northwest - southeast direction along the axis 16
of the Columbia River/Missoula flood channel eroded into the Ringold Formation sediments. The 17
channel is filled with more transmissive Hanford formation sediments. 18
5.4.1 Groundwater Contamination 19
Nitrate, associated with past-practice activities in 200 East Area, is a general groundwater chemistry 20
parameter and is not a contaminant of concern for the IDF. However, the distribution of existing nitrate 21
in the groundwater gives an indication of the general groundwater flow direction and the influence that 22
adjacent sites might have on the IDF. 23
High nitrate concentrations found near liquid waste disposal facilities located outside the IDF site that 24
received effluent from the PUREX Plant are decreasing steadily with time. The highest nitrate 25
concentration found in 2002 was 170,000 µg/L in well 299-E17-9 at the 216-A-36B crib and the crib is 26
thought to be the source of the nitrate. The drinking water standard for nitrate is 45,000 µg/L (nitrate 27
ion). 28
Nitrate in well 299-E24-18, just inside the east boundary of the IDF site, decreased from a high of 29
86,300 µg/L in 1990 to a low of 17,000 µg/L in 1993, reflecting the cessation of PUREX Plant operations 30
in 1988. Since 1993, nitrate has increased to 48,300 µg/L in 2003 (Figure 5.7). The reason for the 31
increase is not understood. One possibility is related to changing groundwater flow direction. During 32
PUREX Plant operations, flow direction was probably to the northwest because of effluent discharges to 33
the B Pond System and PUREX Plant cribs, and nitrate contamination might have spread to the northwest 34
during that period. Subsequently, liquid discharges to the B Pond System and PUREX Plant cribs have 35
ceased and the flow direction in the area of the IDF site apparently has returned to the southeast direction. 36
With that change, higher levels of nitrate contaminated groundwater might be returning to the area from 37
the northwest. 38
Except for an anomalous value of 82,600 µg/L in 1988, nitrate concentration in well 299-E24-7 was 39
steady and ranged between 12,800 and 35,400 µg/L between 1985 and 1996 when the well was last 40
sampled (Figure 5.7). The last two measured values from 1995 and 1996 were 26,000 µg/L. Farther 41
southwest, nitrate detected in 1998 in well 299-E17-21 in Ringold unit E was 23,600 µg/L. 42
5.4.2 Vadose Zone Contamination 43
Very little characterization and monitoring of the soil have been done at the IDF site because no major 44
construction or waste disposal activities have occurred in this part of the Hanford Site. Implementation of 45
the Integrated Disposal Facility Preoperational Monitoring Plan (RPP-6877) has begun and 46
characterization activities will occur during the next few years. The Integrated Disposal Facility 47
Preoperational Monitoring Plan (RPP-6877) has a strong emphasis on vadose zone characterization and 48
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.10
deferred groundwater monitoring to this groundwater monitoring plan. Vadose zone information 1
resulting from preoperational monitoring will be included, if applicable, in updates to this groundwater 2
monitoring plan. 3
The Integrated Disposal Facility Preoperational Monitoring Plan (RPP-6877) identified three areas near 4
the IDF site that might have had an influence on the vadose zone beneath the site. These are the 218-E-1 5
Burial Ground and an unplanned release associated with the burial ground; the coal ash pile in the 6
northwest part of the site; and a transfer line along the northern part of the west boundary of the IDF site 7
(RPP-6877). Work was outlined in the Integrated Disposal Facility Preoperational Monitoring Plan to 8
determine whether these three areas had introduced contamination to the site. Appropriate results from 9
preoperational monitoring will be incorporated into this groundwater monitoring plan as results become 10
available and as revisions are needed. 11
In addition to these facilities, the 216-A-38-1, 216-A-45, and 216-A-10 cribs and the 299-E24-111 12
injection well are located east of the IDF site. The 216-A-38-1 crib never was used (DOE/RL-92-04). 13
The 299-E24-111 injection well never received any waste (DOE/RL-92-04). The 216-A-45 and the 14
216-A 10 cribs both received large quantities of liquid waste (DOE/RL-92-04). Because these latter two 15
facilities are more than 200 meters from the IDF site, it is unlikely these facilities have affected the soil 16
beneath the IDF site. Data from the vadose zone in IDF wells drilled along the east side of the site 17
support this. 18
5.5 Detection Monitoring Program 19
Because the IDF has not been constructed, no contaminants have been released to the ground or to the 20
groundwater. 21
5.5.1 Indicator Parameters, Waste Constituents, Reaction Products to be Monitored 22
5.5.1.1 Regulated Constituents 23
The regulated constituents for this groundwater monitoring plan are the constituents identified on the IDF 24
Part A Form. 25
5.5.1.2 Monitoring Parameters 26
The parameters to be routinely monitored are listed in Table 5.2. These parameters include the indicator 27
parameters and supplemental parameters. 28
The indicator parameters will be used to monitor for hazardous constituents reaching the groundwater as a 29
result of IDF operations. Only the indicator parameters are subject to the statistical methods described in 30
Section 5.5.4.7. Total organic carbon and total organic halides are indicator parameters selected to 31
monitor impacts of RCRA regulated organic constituents on the groundwater quality. Specific 32
conductance is selected as an indicator parameter to monitor impacts of metals and anions on 33
groundwater quality. pH is a general indicator of groundwater quality. Specific conductance and pH are 34
measured in the field at the time of sampling. Chromium is included as an indicator parameter because 35
hexavalent chromium is one of the more mobile of the regulated metals to be disposed of at the IDF and 36
should be one of the first constituents to enter groundwater if the regulated facility impacts groundwater. 37
Analyses of alkalinity, anions, and metals are to provide supplemental data on general groundwater 38
chemistry beneath the IDF. This information aids data interpretation and quality control. Supplemental 39
parameters will not be used in statistical evaluations. Turbidity is analyzed at the well just before 40
sampling and provides an indication of the groundwater condition at the time of sampling. 41
For the first year of monitoring, all parameters listed in Table 5.2 will be monitored twice each quarter to 42
determine background concentrations. After the first year, indicator and supplemental parameters will be 43
monitored semi-annually. In addition, field measurements of temperature and turbidity will be made at 44
each sampling event. 45
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.11
During the first sampling event at each well for the first year of monitoring, samples will be collected for 1
analysis of the indicator parameters, the supplemental parameters, and the Appendix IX constituents 2
(40 CFR 264) included in IDF Part A Form. After the first sampling event, samples will be collected for 3
analysis of indicator parameters and supplemental parameters only. 4
After the first year of sampling, if an indicator parameter suggests there is an impact to groundwater, 5
additional samples will be collected to verify the initial results. If a statistically significant increase in any 6
indicator parameter is confirmed, analyses will be made for the regulated parameters in IDF Part A Form. 7
Monitoring for baseline conditions was completed for the indicator parameters in April 2006 and for the 8
complete Appendix IX list in January 2007. Semi-annual monitoring has continued since that time with 9
the collection of four independent samples each semiannual period. During the Pre-Active life, sampling 10
will continue at the IDF with the collection of one sample each year to maintain the baseline. When the 11
IDF becomes operational, sampling will revert to four independent samples collected each semiannual 12
period. 13
5.5.1.3 Dangerous Waste Characterization 14
This section describes the waste to be disposed in the IDF and gives background information on how the 15
constituents of concern (regulated constituents) and indicator parameters were selected. 16
5.5.1.3.1 Volume of the Waste Package 17
The IDF will be a single, expandable disposal facility constructed to RCRA Subtitle C standards, half of 18
which is for disposal of mixed waste the other half will be for disposal of low-level waste. Initial capacity 19
for mixed waste disposal is 82,000 cubic meters of waste with an ultimate capacity of up to 450,000 cubic 20
meters of waste. Disposal capacity beyond the initial 82,000 cubic meters will require a modification to 21
the Part B Permit. The mixed waste types to be disposed in the IDF include vitrified Low Activity Waste 22
(LAW) from the RPP-WTP and DBVS. Additionally, mixed waste generated by IDF operations will be 23
disposed of in IDF. 24
The vitrified LAW will be mostly silicate glass monoliths. The RPP-WTP packages nominally measure 25
approximately 1.22 m diameter by 2.3 m high and the DBVS package nominally measure approximately 26
2.4 m wide by 3.1 m high by 7.3 m long. Vitrified LAW will be remote handled. 27
If other forms of immobilized LAW are considered in the future, this monitoring plan will be amended. 28
Mixed waste generated through waste operations at IDF will be packaged based on the size of the waste, 29
with the most common container being galvanized or aluminized 208 liter containers. 30
5.5.1.3.2 Composition of the Waste Packages 31
HNF-4921 provides detailed estimates for the inventory of hazardous chemicals in the vitrified LAW feed 32
and in the vitrified LAW package. The composition of the vitrified LAW package was estimated in 33
HNF-4921 based on: 34
1) The Tank Waste Retrieval System Characterization Program tank-by-tank Best Basis Inventories. 35
2) The latest U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection (DOE/ORP) guidance. 36
3) The requirements for waste retrieval and vitrification. 37
4) Available information from waste treatment plant contractors, and (5) proposed operating 38
scenarios for retrieval of waste from Double Shell Tanks (DSTs) and Single Shell Tanks (SSTs). 39
5.5.1.4 Behavior of Constituents 40
Almost all of the regulated constituents for the IDF show some degree of retardation in the vadose zone 41
and in the saturated zone. Table 5.3 indicates the range of expected behaviors in the subsurface at the 42
IDF for selected regulated constituents. The constituents in Table 5.3 were selected by comparing the 43
expected constituents in the vitrified LAW package (from HNF-4921) and the historical inventories of the 44
Hanford Site low-level burial grounds (from WHC-MR-0008 and WHC-SD-EN-AP-015) to 40 CFR 264, 45
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.12
Appendix IX (see IDF Part A Form). The mobilities and solubilities in Table 5.3 give an estimated range 1
for the properties of the constituents of concern. 2
5.5.1.5 Detectability 3
The detection limits in groundwater for each RCRA regulated constituent and the indicator parameters are 4
given in Table 5.4. 5
5.5.2 Groundwater Monitoring Program 6
The following sections provide a description of wells, equipment decontamination, representative 7
samples, and monitoring wells that are not upgradient. 8
5.5.2.1 Description of Wells 9
The groundwater monitoring well network for the IDF ultimately will have eight wells: three 10
hydraulically upgradient of the facility and five hydraulically downgradient. The downgradient wells will 11
be placed to sample groundwater passing the point of compliance. The point of compliance at the IDF 12
site is a plane connecting the groundwater monitoring wells along the southern and eastern sides of the 13
site in accordance with WAC 173-303-645(6), which states "The point of compliance is a vertical surface 14
located at the hydraulically downgradient limit of the waste management area that extends down into the 15
uppermost aquifer underlying the regulated unit". The monitoring network will consist of existing and 16
new, downgradient wells to complete the monitoring network. All wells will be WAC 173-160 17
compliant. 18
Three upgradient wells will be used for the IDF monitoring network. Two of these wells (299-E18-1 and 19
299-E24-21) are existing wells. Upgradient well 299-E24-21 was installed in March 2001 for 20
characterization of the IDF site. The well, located at the northeast corner of the site (Figure 5.8), was 21
constructed to RCRA standards as per WAC 173-160. Well 299-E18-1 was installed in 1988 as part of 22
the 2101-M RCRA monitoring network. The well currently has 2 to 3 meters of water above the bottom 23
of the screened interval. 24
The third upgradient well will be a new well located at the northwest corner of the IDF (Figure 5.8). The 25
well will be constructed to RCRA standard as per WAC 173-160 and screened at the water table. 26
Three of the downgradient wells are existing wells (299-E17-22, 299-E17-23, and 299-E17-25) that were 27
installed as WAC 173-160 compliant wells in 2002. Their location is shown in Figure 5.8. The 28
remaining two downgradient wells will be installed in a sequence coordinated with the IDF operations. 29
Three phases of trench construction are assumed for the purposes of this monitoring plan. Excavation for 30
the first phase is scheduled for September 2004 and a new phase is planned for every ten subsequent 31
years. Changes in the planned operations of the IDF will be reflected in changes to this groundwater 32
monitoring plan as needed. 33
The first new downgradient well will be installed along the eastern side of the facility (Figure 5.8) at least 34
one year before the IDF receives waste. The second new downgradient well will be installed along the 35
southern boundary of the Site at least one year before the third phase of waste disposal becomes 36
operational. Both wells will be installed such that at least one year of background data can be obtained 37
prior to the associated operational phase becoming active. Figure 5.8 shows the sequence for both 38
groundwater well construction and waste disposal. The locations of all existing and new wells in the IDF 39
monitoring network are noted on the figure. 40
The placement of the wells for the IDF monitoring network was based on professional judgment. The 41
efficiency of the resulting groundwater monitoring network was evaluated using a simple two 42
dimensional, horizontal transport model called the monitoring efficiency model (MEMO) (Wilson et al. 43
1992). The model estimates the efficiency of a monitoring network at the point of compliance. The 44
model simulates a contaminant plume originating from a series of grid points within the disposal facility 45
using the Domenico-Robbins method (Domenico and Robbins, 1985). The model calculates both 46
advective flow and dispersive flow in two dimensions and determines whether the resulting plume will be 47
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.13
detected by a monitoring well before the plume travels some selected distance beyond the disposal facility 1
boundary. The selected distance is termed the buffer zone. (A longitudinal dispersivity of 95 meters and 2
horizontal dispersivity of 9.5 meters were used to evaluate the monitoring network in Figure 5.8.) 3
Outputs from the model are the monitoring efficiency and a map of the disposal facility showing areas 4
where leaks would not be detected under the given site-specific parameters provided as input to the 5
model. Monitoring efficiency is defined as the ratio of the area within a disposal facility from which a 6
release likely would be detected to the total area of the disposal facility, expressed as a percentage. 7
The monitoring efficiency calculated by the MEMO model for the proposed monitoring network is 100% 8
for phase I, 98% for phase II, and 99% for phase III (Figure 5.8). 9
All wells for the IDF site will be constructed to meet WAC 173-160 requirements. The wells will be 10
protected at the surface with a concrete pad, protective posts, a protective outer casing, and locking cap. 11
The casing and screen will be stainless steel, an appropriate filter pack for the screen slot size will be 12
used, and an annular seal of bentonite and cement will be emplaced. All wells will be screened at the 13
water table with 10.6 meter long screens, which will accommodate the greatest possible future decrease in 14
water level. The wells will be developed and dedicated sampling pumps will be installed. 15
New wells will be surveyed with a down hole gyroscope at the time of construction to determine any 16
deviation from vertical so that corrections can be made to subsequent water level measurements. 17
Gyroscope surveys will also be conducted on existing wells in the network prior to IDF operations. 18
5.5.2.2 Equipment Decontamination 19
Drilling equipment will be decontaminated using high temperature and pressure [82oC (180F) and 20
greater than 70.3 kg/cm2 (1,000 psi)] washing with an approved cleaning solution. The equipment will be 21
rinsed with clean water. The procedure is specified in controlled manuals. 22
Equipment for collecting soil samples during drilling for later chemical analysis and for measuring the 23
water table will be decontaminated according to established methods. The methods call for washing 24
equipment with phosphate free detergent, rinsing three times with reverse osmosis/de-ionized water, 25
rinsing once with 1M or 10% nitric acid (glass or stainless steel equipment only), rinsing three more times 26
with reverse osmosis/de-ionized water, and a final rinse with chromatograph grade hexane. Equipment 27
will be dried for 50 minutes at 100oC (212F). After drying, equipment will be wrapped in unused 28
aluminum foil and sealed with tape. 29
No decontamination of groundwater sampling equipment will be necessary because each well will have a 30
dedicated pump. 31
5.5.2.3 Representative Samples 32
No groundwater chemistry data specific to the IDF site are available. Sample representativeness will be 33
addressed after collection of the first year of background data. 34
5.5.2.4 Locations of Background Groundwater Monitoring Wells that are not Upgradient 35
All background groundwater monitoring wells at the IDF are located upgradient. 36
5.5.3 Background Values 37
Groundwater background (baseline) has not been established for the IDF site. Background data will be 38
determined before construction of the site using the wells described previously (Section 5.5.2.1) for the 39
use of upgradient vs. downgradient comparisons (Section 5.5.4.7). 40
5.5.3.1 Plan for Establishing Groundwater Quality Data 41
Well location, sampling frequency, sampling quantity, and background values are discussed in the 42
following sections. 43
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.14
5.5.3.1.1 Well Locations 1
Groundwater monitoring wells in the IDF monitoring network were described in Section 5.5.2.1 and their 2
locations are shown on Figure 5.8. 3
5.5.3.1.2 Sampling Frequency 4
Eight background samples will be collected during the first year of monitoring from phase I wells. Two 5
samples will be collected quarterly for one year. For the new well needed for phase III operations, two 6
samples will be collected quarterly for one year before phase III is operational. For all wells, two 7
independent samples will be collected each quarter, one per month for 2 consecutive months followed by 8
a month of non-sampling. This sequence will be repeated each quarter during the first year of monitoring. 9
Section 5.5.3.1.3 provides frequency logic. 10
5.5.3.1.3 Sampling Quantites 11
The performance of the statistical method proposed for the IDF is evaluated by the following two goals: 12
To have adequate statistical power to detect real contamination when contamination occurs. 13
To keep the network wide Type I error (across all constituents and wells being tested) at an 14
acceptably low level (approximately 5%). [Note that the Type I error in the detection monitoring 15
stage equates to the false positive rate, that is, the probability that the test will indicate 16
contamination has occurred although no contamination has truly occurred.] 17
The statistical power and the network-side false positive rate of a test depend on several factors, including 18
the background sample size, the type of proposed test, and the number of comparisons. All other factors 19
being equal, the larger the sample size is (i.e., the number of background samples), the greater the 20
statistical power is. Therefore, as recommended in EPA/530-R-93-003, at least eight independent 21
samples will be collected from each well for background purposes. This is a sufficient number of samples 22
to establish a reliable background (EPA/530-R-93-003) and meets the regulations in 23
WAC 173-303-645(9)(d). 24
5.5.3.1.4 Background Values 25
The default method of analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to detect any impact on groundwater 26
quality at the IDF where the mean of the measurements from compliance (downgradient) wells is 27
compared to the mean of the distribution of background data from the upgradient wells. The details of the 28
method are described in Section 5.5.4.7.1. 29
5.5.4 Sampling, Analysis and Statistical Procedures 30
Sample collection, sample preservation and transfer/shipment, analytical procedures, chain of custody and 31
additional requirements for compliance point monitoring are discussed in the following sections. 32
5.5.4.1 Sample Collection 33
Groundwater sampling procedures, sample collection documentation, sample preservation and 34
transfer/shipment, and chain-of-custody requirements are described in subcontractor operating 35
procedures/manuals and in a quality assurance project plan for the Hanford Groundwater Performance 36
Assessment Project. 37
Quality requirements for sampling activities, including requirements for procedures, containers, transport, 38
storage, chain of custody, and records requirements, are specified in a statement of work (SOW) to 39
subcontractors. To ensure that samples of known quality are obtained, the subcontractor will be required 40
to use contractor controlled procedures based on standard methods for groundwater sampling whenever 41
possible. The procedures will be reviewed for technical quality and consistency. In addition, periodic 42
assessments of sample collection activities will be performed to ensure further that procedures are 43
followed to maintain sample quality and integrity. The following is a brief description of the sampling 44
requirements. 45
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.15
Samples generally will be collected after three casing volumes of groundwater are withdrawn or after the 1
field parameters pH, temperature, and specific conductance have stabilized. Field parameters are 2
measured in a flow through chamber. Turbidity should be equal to or below 5 NTU (nephelometric 3
turbidity units) before sample collection if possible. Sample preservatives will be added to the collection 4
bottles in the laboratory before their use in the field. Samples to be analyzed for metals will be filtered in 5
the field to ensure results represent dissolved metals and do not include particulates (40 CFR 136.3). 6
Duplicates, trip blanks, and field equipment blanks will be collected as part of the general quality control 7
program. 8
Water level measurements will be made each time a well is sampled. Procedures developed in 9
accordance with the techniques described in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM 1988), 10
Garber and Koopman (1968), and U. S. Geological Survey (1977) will be followed to measure water 11
levels. Water levels will be measured primarily with laminated steel electrical sounding tapes, although 12
graduated steel tapes are used occasionally. 13
5.5.4.2 Sample Preservation and Shipment 14
Sample preservation will be done in accordance with existing procedures. A chemical preservative label 15
will be affixed to the sample container listing the specific preservative. The brand name, lot number, 16
concentration, and date opened of the preservatives will be recorded. A calibrated dispenser or pipette 17
will be used to dispense preservatives. Appropriate measures will be taken to eliminate any potential for 18
cross contamination. 19
Sample packaging and transfer/shipping will be done in accordance with subcontract procedures. 20
Samples will be labeled and sealed with evidence tape, wrapped with bubble wrap, and placed in a 21
Department of Transportation approved container with coolant (if required). Hazardous samples will 22
have packaging parameters determined by associated hazards. A chain of custody will accompany all 23
samples. 24
5.5.4.3 Analytical Procedures 25
The methods for analysis of chemical constituents in groundwater will conform to Test Methods for 26
Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd Ed. (SW-846); Methods for Chemical Analysis 27
of Water and Wastes (EPA-600/4-79-020) or other EPA methods; and the Annual Book of ASTM 28
Standards (American Society for Testing and Materials, 1986). The methods used to obtain routine data 29
results are presented in Table 5.4. 30
5.5.4.3.1 Data Storage and Retrieval 31
All contract analytical laboratory results will be submitted by the laboratory to be loaded into the Hanford 32
Environmental Information System (HEIS) database. Most data are received from the laboratory in 33
electronic form, and will be loaded electronically. Parameters measured in the field will be entered into 34
HEIS either manually or through electronic transfer. Hard copy data reports are received for records 35
storage. Data from the HEIS database will be retrieved for data validation, data reduction, and trend 36
analysis. Copies of supporting analytical data will be sent yearly to Pacific Northwest National 37
Laboratory (PNNL) for storage. 38
5.5.4.3.2 Data Verification and Validation 39
Verification of analytical data provided by the subcontracted laboratory will be performed in accordance 40
with established procedure. This procedure includes checks for: (1) completeness of hardcopy 41
deliverable, (2) condition of samples on receipt by the laboratory, (3) problems that arose during the 42
analysis of the samples, and (4) correct reporting of results. The procedure also describes the actions to 43
be taken if data are incomplete or deficient. 44
Verification and validation of groundwater chemistry data will be performed according to established 45
procedures. Data will be reviewed quarterly to assure the data are complete and representative. The 46
review will include evaluation of quality control data (e.g., field blanks, duplicates, and laboratory blanks) 47
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.16
and a technical review by a project scientist familiar with the hydrogeology of the site. The technical 1
review might include comparison of recent data to historical trends and comparison of related 2
constituents. Suspect data will be investigated through the data review process in accordance with 3
established procedures and will be flagged in the database. 4
5.5.4.3.3 Reporting 5
Groundwater chemistry and water level data will be reviewed after each sampling event and will be 6
available in the HEIS database. The results of the statistical evaluation and associated information will be 7
submitted to Ecology quarterly in Hanford Site groundwater monitoring reports. 8
If statistically, significant evidence of contamination is determined (after waste has been introduced to the 9
facility and after the confirmation re-sampling evaluation process) for one or more of the indicator 10
parameters at any monitoring well at the compliance point, and if the owner or operator decides not to 11
make a false positive claim, the following will be performed. 12
Notify Ecology in writing within 7 days of the finding indicating which chemical parameters or 13
dangerous waste constituents have shown statistically significant evidence of contamination. 14
Determine whether dangerous constituents are present and, if so, in what concentration. 15
The owner or operator might re-sample within 1 month and repeat the analysis for those 16
compounds detected in the above (i.e., second bullet). The resample data will be compared with 17
the trigger value. 18
Submit an application for a permit modification, if necessary, to establish a compliance 19
monitoring program to Ecology in 90 days or within the time agreed to in writing by Ecology. 20
The dangerous constituents detected, either in the initial analysis or in the second confirmation analysis, 21
will form the basis for compliance monitoring. 22
In case of a false positive claim [as allowed by WAC 173-303-645(9)(g)(vi)], the following will apply. 23
Notify Ecology in writing within 7 days of the finding (i.e., exceedance) and indicate that a false 24
positive claim will be made. 25
Submit a report to Ecology within 90 days or within the time agreed to in writing by Ecology. 26
This report should demonstrate that a source other than the regulated unit caused the 27
contamination or that the contamination resulted from an error in sampling, analysis, evaluation, 28
or natural variation in groundwater chemistry. 29
Submit an application for a permit modification, if necessary, to make any appropriate changes to 30
the detection monitoring program within 90 days or within the time agreed to in writing by 31
Ecology. 32
Continue to monitor in accordance with the detection monitoring program. 33
Submit an application for a permit modification, if the detection monitoring program is 34
determined to no longer satisfy the requirements [of WAC 173-303-645(9)], to make any 35
appropriate changes to the program within 90 days or within the time agreed to in writing by 36
Ecology. 37
5.5.4.4 Chain of Custody 38
The procedures used for chain-of-custody control of samples are documented in existing manuals. The 39
procedure requires that each transfer of custody shall be documented by the signatures of the custodian 40
relinquishing the samples and the custodian receiving the samples, as well as the time and date of transfer. 41
The laboratory custodian will sign and date the chain-of-custody form upon receipt of the samples at the 42
laboratory. 43
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.17
5.5.4.5 Additional Requirements for Compliance Point Monitoring 1
This section describes sampling frequency and determination of groundwater quality for the samples from 2
the groundwater monitoring network. Compliance data will be compared to baseline data collected from 3
the upgradient wells and a determination of impacts to groundwater will be made using the proposed 4
ANOVA method (explained in Section 5.5.4.7.1). 5
5.5.4.5.1 Sampling Frequency 6
Under final status regulations, the default sampling procedure states that a sequence of at least four 7
samples from each well (background and compliance wells) must be collected at least semiannually 8
during detection monitoring at an interval that ensures, to the greatest extent technically feasible, that an 9
independent sample is obtained [40 CFR 264.97(g)(1) and (2), WAC 173-303-645(8)(g)(i) and (ii), and 10
(9)(d)]. 11
The default sampling procedures are adopted for the IDF Active life as follows: four independent samples 12
from each groundwater monitoring well will be sampled for the indicator parameters (Table 5.2) 13
semiannually during the active life of the regulated unit (including the closure period), one per month for 14
four consecutive months followed by two months of non-sampling. The mean of the measurements from 15
the downgradient wells will be compared semiannually to the mean of the distribution of the background 16
data using ANOVA. 17
Semi-annual monitoring has been accomplished at the IDF since January 2007 with the collection of four 18
independent samples each semiannual period. During the Pre-Active life, sampling will continue at the 19
IDF with the collection of one sample each year to maintain the baseline. During Active life, sampling 20
will revert to four independent samples collected each semiannual period described above. 21
5.5.4.5.2 Compliance Point Groundwater Quality Values 22
The groundwater quality data collected from the groundwater monitoring wells will be compared to the 23
mean of the background data from upgradient wells for each constituent by ANOVA. If the mean is 24
calculated from transformed baseline data (logarithmic transformation or nonparametric approach), then 25
the monitoring data will be transformed accordingly; otherwise, the original monitoring data will be used 26
in the comparisons. 27
During detection monitoring, data verification will be applied in case of an initial exceedance. For 28
ANOVA test, if the test of hypothesis of equal means for all wells fails, post hoc comparisons are needed 29
to determine which compliance well(s) is (are) contaminated. This will be done by comparing 30
concentration differences (called contrasts in the ANOVA and multiple comparison framework) between 31
each compliance well with the background wells (EPA/530-SW-89-026). If the contaminated compliance 32
well(s) is (are) determined by post hoc comparisons, verification sampling will be implemented for the 33
constituent(s) in question. Verification sampling is needed to determine if the exceedance is an artifact 34
caused by an error in sampling, analysis, or statistical evaluation or an actual variation in groundwater 35
chemistry. A collection of at least four measurements from the re-sampled compliance well(s) is required 36
to perform ANOVA test on comparison with the mean of the background data (EPA/530-R-93-003). 37
Adequate time should elapse to ensure statistical independence between the original measurements and 38
the re-sample measurements, which is assured by the sampling frequency proposed in Section 5.5.4.5.1. 39
The existing nitrate plume beneath the IDF site is described in Section 5.4.1. Nitrate is not included in 40
IDF Part A Form and, therefore, is not a constituent of concern for the IDF. Existing groundwater 41
conditions will be monitored by the indicator parameters and supplemental constituents as described in 42
Section 5.5.1. Specific conductance will respond to nitrate so that any changes in the nitrate 43
concentration will be reflected by changes in the indicator parameter specific conductance. 44
Anion analysis is one of the supplemental constituents to be monitored at the IDF site. Anion analysis 45
will determine the nitrate concentration. Therefore, through comparison of regression lines of specific 46
conductance and nitrate (Zar, 1999) and/or contaminant source analysis (Gibbons, 1994), it can be 47
determined whether any change in specific conductance is due to a change in nitrate. If a change in 48
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.18
specific conductance is due to a change in nitrate, then that specific conductance change is not attributed 1
to the IDF. If, however, a statistically significant change in specific conductance is not attributable to 2
nitrate, verification sampling will occur as described above. 3
5.5.4.6 Annual Determination 4
Groundwater flow rate and flow direction at the IDF site will be determined annually for the uppermost 5
aquifer. Flow rate will be determined by calculation using the groundwater gradient, and the Darcy flow 6
equation, vh = Khih/ne, where vh is the horizontal groundwater velocity, Kh is the horizontal hydraulic 7
conductivity, ih is the horizontal hydraulic gradient, and ne is the effective porosity. Effective porosities 8
used at Hanford Site RCRA regulated units are on the order of 0.1 to 0.3 (PNNL-14187, 1 of 2, 2 of 2); 9
effective porosity might be determined specifically for the IDF from hydrologic tests. 10
Hydraulic gradients will be determined from measurements of water levels. 11
5.5.4.7 Statistical Determination 12
This section describes the method of statistical evaluation and the statistical procedures to indicate 13
whether dangerous waste or dangerous waste constituents from the IDF might have entered the 14
groundwater in the uppermost aquifer. These evaluations will be made as soon as practicable after 15
validation of the full data set from each sampling event. 16
The monitoring program periodically will re-evaluate the statistical tests being used. The methods 17
described will be reviewed during and after background, data are collected to ensure the methods are the 18
most appropriate, considering site conditions. 19
The goal of a RCRA final status detection-monitoring program [WAC 173-303-645(9)] is to monitor for 20
indicator parameters that provide a reliable indication of the presence of dangerous constituents in 21
groundwater in the uppermost aquifer beneath the site. This is accomplished by testing for statistically 22
significant changes in concentrations of indicators in downgradient wells relative to baseline values. The 23
default statistical method ANOVA is proposed for the detection monitoring program of the IDF. The 24
proposed statistical method is consistent with EPA/530-SW-89-026, EPA/530-R-93-003, and 25
WAC 173-303-645. 26
The number of tested constituents will be limited to the indicators to maintain a sufficiently low false-27
positive rate (EPA/530-R-93-003, page 62; Gibbons 1994, page 16). Verification sampling is an integral 28
part of the statistical design to lower the overall false-positive rate and determine whether the difference 29
between background and compliance-point data is an artifact caused by an error in sampling, analysis, or 30
statistical evaluation (Section 5.5.4.5.2). 31
5.5.4.7.1 Statistical Procedure 32
In accordance with WAC 173-303-645(8)(h), acceptable statistical methodology includes analysis of 33
variance (ANOVA), tolerance intervals, prediction intervals, control charts, test of proportions, or other 34
statistical methods approved by Ecology. The type of monitoring, the nature of the data, the proportions 35
of non-detects, and spatial and temporal variations are some of the important factors to be considered in 36
the selection of appropriate statistical methods. The EPA default method ANOVA will be implemented 37
for the IDF site to compare the differences of means of the measurements from upgradient and 38
downgradient wells. The detailed discussions of the ANOVA test can be found in EPA/530-SW-89-026 39
and statistical textbooks (Gilbert, 1987; Casella and Berger, 1990; Davis, 2002), and can be executed 40
using commercial statistical software such as SAS or SYSTAT. Under WAC 173-303-645(8)(i)(ii), the 41
proposed statistical method must comply with the performance standard, that is, for a multiple 42
comparisons procedure the Type I error level must be no less than 0.05, and maintained at the level of no 43
less than 0.01 for individual well comparisons. By definition, Type I error is the false rejection rate of the 44
null hypothesis (H0) of the statistical test. In detection or compliance monitoring, the statistical test is 45
defined as H0: no release, i.e., the means of the distributions from upgradient and downgradient wells are 46
the same, and the alternative (Ha) evidence of release, e.g., "clean until proven contaminated" 47
(EPA/530-R-93-003). Therefore, the proposed statistical method must comply with the requirement of 48
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.19
maintaining Type I error, which equates false positive rate in the stage of detection monitoring at 1
approximate 5% level. As described in EPA/530-SW-89-026, ANOVA procedures have the advantages 2
of combining multiple downgradient into a single statistical test, thus enabling the network-wide false 3
positive rate for any single constituent (not multiple constituents) to be kept at 5 percent, and also 4
maintain reasonable power for detecting contamination. 5
The details of the ANOVA procedures are described as follows (EPA/530-SW-89-026): 6
First, check the proportion of non-detects of the measurements from the upgradient and 7
downgradient wells. When the proportion of non-detects is less than 15%, the non-detects will be 8
reported as one-half the minimum detection limit or practical quantitation limit, and proceed with 9
parametric ANOVA analysis. When the proportion of non-detects is greater than 15%, 10
non-parametric ANOVA analysis will be used for comparing the means of downgradient and 11
upgradient wells. 12
Evaluate the distributions of the measurements from the upgradient and downgradient wells. The 13
assumptions with parametric ANOVA test are the residuals are normally distributed with equal 14
variance. The normality of the distribution the residuals can be checked using coefficient of 15
variation, plotting the data on probability plot, and/or Shapiro-Wilk’s test (EPA/530-SW-89-026; 16
Gibbons, 1994). The assumption of normality usually can be met by log-transforming the data or 17
by other Box-Cox transformations. When the assumptions of normality and lognormality cannot 18
be justified, the non-parametric ANOVA method will be used for the IDF. Bartlett’s test can be 19
used in checking equality, or homogeneity, of variances. 20
The parametric ANOVA procedures include: 21
Assume a monitoring network with k wells, and total number of observations N. First, 22
compute well total, well mean, and well residuals (observations subtracted by well mean) for 23
each well, and grand total and mean of all observations (all wells). The well residuals are 24
used to check the assumption of normality. 25
Compute the sum of squares of difference between well means and the grand mean, SSwells 26
that is a measure of the variability between wells with (k-1) degrees of freedom. 27
Compute the total sum of squares of differences between all observations and the grand 28
mean, SStotal, which is a measure of the variability in all observations with (N-1) degrees of 29
freedom. 30
Compute the sum of squares of differences of observations within wells from the well means, 31
SSerror, which is a measure of the variability within wells with (N-k) degrees of freedom 32
calculated by the following subtraction: 33
SSerror = SStotal – SSwells 34
Test the hypothesis of equal means for all k wells by computing F value with the means 35
squares of differences: 36
F = MSwells / MSerror 37
where the means of squares are the sums of squares divided by the associated degrees of 38
freedom, that is, MSwells = SSwells / (k-1), and MSerror = SSerror / (N-k). Compare the F value to 39
the tabulated F statistics with (k-1) and (N-k) degress of freedom at the 5% significance level 40
(EPA/530-SW 89-026, Appendix B, Table 2). If the calculated F value exceeds the tabulated 41
F statistics, the null hypothesis of equal well means is rejected. Proceed with test of contrasts 42
in the next step. Otherwise, the hypothesis of equal means is accepted that there is no 43
significant difference between the concentrations at k wells (upgradient and downgradient 44
wells), that is, no evidence of contamination. 45
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.20
If the hypothesis of equal well means is rejected, contrasts (concentration differences between a 1
compliance well and background wells) will be tested for each compliance well to determine 2
which compliance well(s) is (are) contaminated. Bonferroni t-statistics will be computed to 3
determine if the significant F value is due to difference between background and compliance 4
wells. Assume that of the k wells, kb are background (upgradient) wells, and kc are compliance 5
(downgradient) wells (i.e., kb + kc = k). Each of the kc compliance wells is compared to the mean 6
of the background wells as the following steps: 7
Compute the mean mb from the kb background wells with a total of nb samples. 8
Compute the difference Di between the mean from the ith compliance well and the mean from 9
the background wells. 10
Compute the standard error of the difference from the ith compliance well with ni observations 11
as: 12
SEi = [MSerror (1/nb + 1/ni)]1/2 13
where MSerror is computed previously as the measure of variability within wells. 14
Obtain the t-statistics from Bonferroni’s t-table (EPA/530-SW-89-026, Appendix B, Table 3) 15
with a significance level of (=0.05/kc) but no less than 0.01 (for individual comparison) and 16
(N-k) degrees of freedom. The critical value for the ith compliance well is defined as Ci = SEi 17
× t. 18
If the difference Di exceeds the critical value Ci, conclude that the mean of the ith compliance 19
well is significantly higher than the mean of the background wells. Otherwise, conclude that 20
the well is not contaminated. 21
The one-way non-parametric ANOVA tests the null hypothesis that the data from each well come 22
from the same continuous distribution and hence have the same median. The procedures, called 23
the Kruskal-Wallis test, include the following steps: 24
Assume the monitoring network as defined previously with a total of N observations from k 25
wells (kb background wells and kc compliance wells). Rank all N observations from least (1) 26
to greatest (N). Let the background wells be group 1, and denote the compliance wells as 27
group 2 to (kc+1). (one group per compliance well). 28
Compute the sum (Ri) and the average (mi) of the ranks of the ni observations in the ith 29
group. 30
Compute the Kruskal-Wallis statistics (H) as 31
13
1
12 1
1
2
Nn
R
NNH
kc
i i
i 32
Compare the calculated H value to the tabulated chi-squared value with kc degrees of freedom 33
(EPA/530-SW-89-026, Appendix B, Table 1). The null hypothesis of equal medians is rejected 34
when the calculated H value exceeds the tabulated critical value. 35
When the null hypothesis of equal medians is rejected, compute the critical difference Ci for 36
each compliance well to the background data (group 1 with nb observations): 37
2/1
/05.0
11
12
1
ib
kcinn
NNZC 38
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.21
Where Z(/ kc) is the upper (0.05/kc) percentile from the standard normal distribution 1
(EPA/530-SW-89-026, Appendix B, Table 4). If there are more than five compliance wells 2
(kc > 5), use Z0.01, the upper one-percentile from the standard normal distribution (Z0.01=2.32) for 3
individual comparison (WAC 173-303-645(8)(i)(ii)). 4
Compute the difference (Di = mi – m1) of average rank mi (i=2 to kc+1) for each compliance well 5
to the background (m1). Compare the difference Di to the critical value Ci for each compliance 6
well. If Di exceeds Ci, conclude that the median of the ith compliance well is significantly higher 7
than the background median. 8
As monitoring continues, the background data will be updated periodically (e.g., every year or 9
two) to incorporate the new data from upgradient wells. This updating process will continue for 10
the life of the monitoring program. Prior to updating older background data with more recent 11
results, a two-sample t-test will be run to compare the older concentration levels with the 12
concentrations of the proposed update samples. If the t-test does not show a significant difference 13
at the 5 percent significant level, proceed to re-estimate the baseline parameters by including the 14
more recent data. If the t-test does show a significant difference, the newer data will not be 15
included as background unless some specific factors can be, identified explaining why 16
background levels at the IDF site have naturally changed (EPA/530-R93-003). 17
Formal testing for outliers will be done when an observation of the background data seems inconsistently 18
high (by orders of magnitude) compared to the rest of the data set in order to avoid the artificial increase 19
of the mean of the background data and a corresponding increase of the false negative rate. Statistical 20
methods such as the Grubbs’ method (Grubbs, 1969), the box-and-whisker plot (Ostle and Malone, 1988), 21
EPA guidance (EPA/530-SW-89-026, p. 11-14) and/or American Society for Testing and Materials 22
guidance (ASTM 1996) will be used for testing outliers. The outliers must be checked to determine if the 23
measurements are in error and need to be corrected or excluded from calculating the background mean. If 24
no specific error is found, the measurements must be retained in the data. 25
A statistically significant exceedance over background (baseline) levels only indicates that the new 26
measurement in a particular monitoring well for a particular constituent is inconsistent with chance 27
expectations based on the available sample of background (baseline) measurements. Any statistical result 28
must be supported by other information to determine if a waste disposal facility has impacted 29
groundwater (ASTM 1996). 30
5.5.4.7.2 Results 31
Sampling and analysis results are reviewed at least semiannually (i.e., after each sampling event) and are 32
available in HEIS. The DOE will submit results of statistical evaluations to Ecology. 33
5.5.5 Compliance Monitoring Program 34
A compliance monitoring program that satisfies requirements set forth in WAC 173-303-645(10) will be 35
established for the IDF if detection-level monitoring reveals statistically significant evidence of dangerous 36
waste contamination from sources within the regulated unit. If compliance monitoring is required, DOE 37
will submit a revised monitoring plan to Ecology specifying dangerous constituents to be monitored, 38
sampling and analysis protocols, statistical evaluation methods, etc. In the compliance monitoring 39
program, the dangerous constituents or parameters will be compared to concentration limits specified in 40
the facility permit as discussed in WAC 173-303-645(5) during the compliance period. 41
The RCRA regulations [WAC 173-303-645(9)(g)] state that if a statistical exceedance occurs in a 42
downgradient well, the entire network immediately must be resampled and analyzed for the constituents 43
in Appendix IX of 40 CFR 264. This sampling would be conducted in parallel with a required permit 44
modification. Appendix IX is an extensive list including a wide variety of volatile and semivolatile 45
organic compounds and trace metals. It is prudent to narrow the analyte list to the specific exceedance 46
event; e.g., if the exceeding contaminant is total organic halides, the project would analyze for the 47
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.22
halogenated hydrocarbons most likely to be present in the area. Results of the resampling will form the 1
basis for returning to detection monitoring or designing a compliance monitoring program. 2
5.5.6 Corrective Action Program 3
If, at a point of compliance (a well), dangerous constituents of concern are measured in the groundwater 4
at concentrations that exceed the applicable groundwater concentration limit, Ecology must be notified in 5
7 days, and an application to modify the permit to include a corrective action plan must be sent to 6
Ecology within 90 days or within the time agreed to by Ecology. A description of the groundwater 7
monitoring plan, including all additional corrective actions that are appropriate for a corrective action 8
program will be prepared and submitted to Ecology when the need for corrective action first is identified. 9
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.23
Figure 5.1. Location of the IDF and Nearby Boreholes 1
2
3
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.24
Figure 5.2. Geologic Map of the 200 East and 200 West Areas and Vicinity 1
2
3
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.25
Figure 5.3. Stratigraphy of the Hanford Site 1
2
3
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.26
Figure 5.4. Cross-Section through the IDF Site 1
2
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.27
1
Figure 5.5. Water Table Map for the Hanford Site 200 East Area 2
3
4
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.28
Figure 5.6. Hydrographs for Wells Near the IDF Site 1
2
Hydrographs
122
122.5
123
123.5
124
124.5
125
125.5
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Measurement Date
Head
(m
am
sl)
299-E17-12
299-E18-1
299-W24-18
299-W23-1
122
122.5
123
123.5
124
124.5
125
125.5
Jan-60 Jan-65 Jan-70 Jan-75 Jan-80 Jan-85 Jan-90 Jan-95 Jan-00
Date
Ele
vati
on
(m
)
299-E23-2
299-E24-18
299-E24-17
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.29
1
Figure 5.7. Concentration versus Time for Nitrate in Wells 299-E24-7 and 299-E24-18 2
3
122
122.5
123
123.5
124
124.5
125
125.5
Jan-60 Jan-65 Jan-70 Jan-75 Jan-80 Jan-85 Jan-90 Jan-95 Jan-00
Date
Ele
vati
on
(m
)
299-E23-1
299-E24-7
Nitrate
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Jan-57 Jan-62 Jan-67 Jan-72 Jan-77 Jan-82 Jan-87 Jan-92 Jan-97 Jan-02
Sample Date
Co
ncen
trati
on
(u
g/
L)
299-E24-7
299-E24-18
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.30
Figure 5.8. Sequence for Installation of Downgradient Monitoring Wells at the IDF 1
Areas in black are areas from which leaks will not be detected with the array of monitoring wells shown. 2
A. Area used for disposal and associated monitoring wells for construction phase I; 3
B. Area used for disposal and associated monitoring wells for construction phase II; 4
C. Area used for disposal and associated monitoring wells for construction phase III. 5
6
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.31
Table 5.1. Water Levels in Groundwater Wells in the Vicinity of the IDF Site
Well Measure date DTW ma WT elev mb Ref elev mc
299-E13-10 03/14/02 101.7 122.5 226.31
299-E17-12 03/14/02 100.0 121.1 221.09
299-E17-13 04/12/01 97.7 122.6 220.34
299-E17-17 04/12/99 97.8 122.8 220.54
299-E17-18 10/03/02 98.5 122.3 220.76
299-E17-20 04/09/97 97.1 123.2 220.33
299-E17-21 04/23/98 100.4 122.7 224.26
299-E17-22 05/20/02 98.1 122.5 220.59
299-E17-23 05/20/02 101.6 122.2 223.84
299-E17-25 05/21/02 98.3 126.7 225.03
299-E18-1 03/14/02 98.2 122.4 220.65
299-E18-3 06/27/96 97.8 123.4 221.20
299-E18-4 06/27/96 97.7 123.4 221.05
299-E19-1 03/22/88 100.4 124.9 225.26
299-E23-1 03/14/02 96.0 122.4 218.39
299-E23-2 12/20/94 97.2 123.5 220.77
299-E24-4 08/10/98 90.6 122.9 213.47
299-E24-7 06/11/97 96.2 123.2 219.34
299-E24-16 10/04/02 97.7 122.3 220.02
299-E24-17 04/07/97 97.36 122.9 220.16
299-E24-18 10/02/02 98.0 122.3 220.35
299-E24-21 03/22/01 95.4 122.6 217.85
a DTW = depth to water 1 b WT elev = elevation of water table (meters above mean sea level) 2 c Ref elev = reference elevation (meters above mean sea level, North American Vertical Datum 88 reference), 3
generally top of well casing. 4
Table 5.2. Monitored Constituents for the IDF 5
Indicator parameters Supplemental constituents
Chromium (filtered) Alkalinity
Specific conductance (field) Anions
Total organic carbon ICP metals
Total organic halides Turbidity (field)
pH (field)
6
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.32
Table 5.3. Expected Behavior of Selected Regulated Constituents/Materials for the IDF
Constituent/material Expected
charged state Expected mobility1
(Kd) Comments
Organics
Acetonitrile N/A High (0.16) Miscible with water (Howard Volume IV,
1993)
Carbon tetrachloride N/A High (0.60); 0.29
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Moderately soluble in water (805 mg/L)
(Howard, Volume II,1990)
Creosote2 N/A High (0.03 to 0.06)3 Relatively low solubility in water.
Naphthalene solubility in water (31.7 mg/L
[Howard, Volume 1, 1989]). Anthracene
solubility in water (0.03 to
0.5 mg/L[Mackay et al, Volume II, 1992])
Dioxane N/A High (0.01) Miscible with water (Howard, Volume II,
1990)
Ethylene glycol N/A Unknown4 Miscible with water (Howard, Volume II,
1990)
Naphthalene Moderate (4 to 10); 1.4
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Sparingly soluble in water (31.7 mg/L
[Howard, Volume I, 1989]).
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
N/A Low (20 to 100); 440 to
2,300 (DOE/RL-93-99)
Low solubility in water. 0.01 to 1 mg/L as
Aloclors (Mackay et al. 1992); 0.27 to 1.45
mg/L (WHC-SD-EN-TI-201)
Tetrachloroethylene N/A High (2.1); 0.22
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Moderately soluble in water (1,503 mg/L)
(Howard, Volume II, 1990)
Toluene N/A High (0.37 to 1.8); 0.18
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Moderately soluble in water (535 mg/L)
(Howard, Volume II, 1990)
Trichloroethylene N/A High (1.0); 0.1 to 1.0
(WHC-SC-EN-TI-201);
0.11 (DOE/RL-93-99)
Moderately soluble in water (1,100 mg/L)
(Howard, Volume II, 1990)
Vinyl chloride N/A High (0.004); 0.056
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Moderately soluble in water (2,763 mg/L)
(Howard, Volume I, 1989)
Inorganics
Antimony Cation (Sb+2) Moderate (0 to 40, best
estimate: 20
[DOE/RL-93-99])
Moderately soluble (best estimate):
1,000 mg/L (DOE/RL-93-99)
Arsenic Anion (AsO4-5 ) High , 0
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Moderately soluble (best estimate):
1,000 mg/L (DOE/RL-93-99)
Barium Cation (Ba+2) Moderate, 20 to 200,
best estimate: 50
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Low solubility (best estimate): 1 mg/L
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Beryllium Cation (Be+2) Moderate, 15 to 200,
best estimate: 20
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Solubility unknown. Best estimate: 1 mg/L
Cadmium Cation (Cd+2) Moderate, 15 to 30, best
estimate: 23
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Sparingly soluble. Best estimate: 25 mg/L
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Chromium Anion (CrO4-2) High (0.0 to 1.02
[PNNL-13895); 0.001
(WHC-SC-EN-TI-201)
Low solubility: 0.5 to 10 mg/L
(WHC-SC-EN-TI-201)
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.33
Table 5.3. Expected Behavior of Selected Regulated Constituents/Materials for the IDF
Constituent/material Expected
charged state Expected mobility1
(Kd) Comments
Lead Cation (Pb+2) Low (1,330 to 469,000
[PNNL-13895])
Low solubility: 287 µg/L in Hanford Site
groundwater (PNL-9791)
Mercury Cation (Hg+2) Moderate, best estimate:
30 (DOE/RL-93-99)
Solubility unknown. Best estimate: 1 mg/L
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Nickel Cation (Ni+2)
Ni (OH)2
NiCO3
Low (48 to 337
[PNNL-13895)
Low solubility: 1.9 mg/L in Hanford Site
groundwater (PNL-9791)
Selenium Anion (SeO4-6) High (3 to 10
[PNNL-13895])
(3 to 8 PNNL-11966)
Moderately soluble. Best estimate:
1,000 mg/L (DOE/RL-93-99)
Silver Cation (Ag+) Moderate, 20 to 30, best
estimate: 25
(DOE/RL-93-99)
Sparingly soluble (best estimate): 25 mg/L
(DOE/RL-93-99).
N/A = Not applicable 1 1 Unless cited in the column, Kd (partition coefficient) values were calculated from Koc (normalized sorption coefficient) values 2 obtained from either the Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals series (Volumes I-IV) (P.H. 3 Howard, ed) or the Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals series 4 [Mackay et al. 1992a, 1992b]. For all organics (except carbon tetrachloride), the calculation assumes an organic carbon content 5 for Hanford Site soil of 1.0%. The value of organic carbon assumed is conservative recognizing that the organic carbon content 6 of most Hanford Site soil falls considerably below this value. However, applying this level of conservatism also recognizes that 7 mineral-driven sorption likely plays a role in organic constituent mobility for Hanford Site soils with organic carbon content at or 8 below 0.1% (PNNL-13560). A calculation of a Kd value using acetonitrile as an example is as follows. The literature estimated 9 value of Koc for acetonitrile is 16 (Howard 1993). 10
Kd = foc X Koc where foc= the mass fraction of organic carbon in the soil. 11
Kd (acetonitrile) = 0.01 X 16 = 0.16. 12 2 Creosote is a coal tar distillate containing high quantities of naphthalene and anthracene (Lewis, R.J., Sr. 1993). 13 3 Because creosote is predominately a mixture of naphthalene and anthracene (footnote 2), assumed Koc values for naphthalene 14 (Howard 1989) and anthracene (Mackay et al., Volume II) in calculating a Kd range for creosote. 15 4 This constituent has a low octanol/water partition coefficient indicating that its adsorption to soil would be low (Howard, 16 Volume II, 1990) 17
18
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.34
Table 5.4. Analytical Methods and Method Detection Limits for Regulated Constituents and Indicator Parameters
Class of Compounds Analytical Methods 1
Method Detection Limit 3 (ug/L)
Metals
Trace Metals:
SW 846, Method 6010 or 0.18 - 44.82
SW 846, Method 6020 or 0.042–8.5
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 .05–50
Arsenic:
SW 846, Method 6010 or 50
SW 846, Method 6020 or 2
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 0.40
Cadmium:
SW 846, Method 6010 or 4
SW 846, Method 6020 or 0.86–2.3
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 0.10
Chromium:
SW 846, Method 6010 or 4
SW 846, Method 6020 or 1.9–3.1
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 0.5
Lead:
SW 846, Method 6010 or 27
SW 846, Method 6020 or 0.49
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 0.10
Mercury:
SW 846, Method 6020 or .093
SW 846 Method 7470 or 0.1
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 0.05
Selenium:
SW 846, Method 6010 or 30
SW 846, Method 6020 or 1
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 0.30
Thallium:
SW 846, Method 6010 or 32
SW 846, Method 6020 or 0.6
EPA/600/R-94/111, Method 200.8 0.10
Semi-Volatile Organics
SW 846, Method 8041 or Not available
SW 846, Method 8040 2.0 – 3.72
SW 846, Method 8270 0.24 – 502
Pesticides/Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
SW 846, Method 8081 (Pesticides) 0.0034 –1.92
SW 846, Method 8082 (PCBs) 0.14–0.492
Herbicides SW 846, Method 8151 .085–842
Volatile Organic
Compounds SW 846, Method 8260 (VOAs) .04–1002
Dioxins SW 846, Method 8290 .00000067–.0000052
General Chemistry Cyanide:
SW 846, Method 9012 or 2.0–2.4
Standard Methods 4500-CN or 4
600/4-79-020, Method 335.2 4
Sulfide:
SW 846, Method 9030 180–7302
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.35
Table 5.4. Analytical Methods and Method Detection Limits for Regulated Constituents and Indicator Parameters
Class of Compounds Analytical Methods 1
Method Detection Limit 3 (ug/L)
Alkalinity EPA-600/4-79-020, Method 310.1 & 310.2,
Standard Methods 2320 850 – 25004
Anions EPA-600/R-93-100, Method 300.0 5.1–44302
pH Company specific Not applicable
Specific conductance EPA-600/R-93-100, Method 120.1 Not applicable
1 Changes to the Analytical Methods require prior approval per WAC 173-303-830, Appendix I, C.2. 1 2 Detection limit varies according to specific compound. The range of method detection limits for all compounds detected by 2
the specific analytical method is given. 3 3 Method detection limits are based on historical values reported by the analytical laboratories, where available. MDLs may 4
vary by laboratory and are updated periodically. 5 4 This MDL is based on Method 310.1, which was used previously. No technical difference is found between Method 310.1 6
and SM 2320, except the SM covers more information on the principles of the method. 7
5.6 REFERENCES 8
Public Laws 9
42 USC 2011 et seq. (1954). Atomic Energy Act of 1954. As amended, Ch. 1073, 68 Stat.919; available 10
online at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980/v1/sr0980v1.pdf 11
42 USC 6901 et seq. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, Public Law 94-580, 12
90 Stat. 2795; available online at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/rcra.html 13
Code of Federal Regulations 14
40 CFR 136.3 (5.5.4.1) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 136. Whole Effluent Toxicity: 15
Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Chemical Analysis of Pollutants. 16
40 CFR 264, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 264, Subpart F. Standards for Owners of 17
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. 18
Washington Administrative Code 19
WAC 173-303-645, Washington Administrative Code. Releases from Regulated Units. Olympia, 20
Washington. 21
Others 22
ASTM. (1986). Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American Society for Testing and Materials, West 23
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania; available for purchase at http://www.astm.org/bookstore/bos 24
BHI-01103. (1999). Clastic Injection Dikes of the Pasco Basin and Vicinity, Rev. 0, Fecht, K.R., Bechtel 25
Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington. 26
BNWL. (1974). BNWL-B-360. Selected Water Table Contour Maps and Well Hydrographs for the 27
Hanford Reservation, 1944 - 1973. Kipp, K.L. and Mudd, R.D., Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 28
Richland, Washington. 29
DOE. (1988). DOE/RW-0164. Repository Location, Hanford Site, Washington, Vols. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 30
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.C. 31
DOE-RL. (1993). DOE/RL-92-04, Revision 0 (Sections 1 of 2, 2 of 2). PUREX Source Aggregate Area 32
Management Study Report. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations, Richland, 33
Washington. 34
DOE-RL. (1994). DOE/RL-93-99. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Report for the 35
Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. 36
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.36
Domenico, P. A. and G. A. Robbins. (1985). A New Method of Contaminant Plume Analysis. 1
Groundwater, Vol. 23, No. 4. 2
EPA. (1979). Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020, as revised, 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 4
EPA. (1986). SW-846. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods, 5
3rd Edition, as amended. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and 6
Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. 7
EPA. (2006). EPA QA/G-4. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives 8
Process, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, 9
Washington, D.C. 10
Garber, M. S. and Koopman, F. C. (1968). Methods of Measuring Water Levels in Deep Well: 11
U.S. Geological Survey. TRWI, Book 8, Chapter A-1. U. S. Government Printing Office, 12
Washington, D. C. 13
Gibbons, R. D. (1994). Statistical Methods for Groundwater Monitoring. John Wiley & Sons, 14
New York. 15
Gilbert, R. O. (1987). Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Van Nostrand 16
Reinhold, New York. 17
HNF. (1999). HNF-4921, Rev. 0. Immobilized Low Activity Tank Waste Inventory Data Package. 18
Wootan, D. W., Fluor Daniel Northwest, Inc., Richland, Washington. 19
Howard, P.H., Ed. (1989). Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic 20
Chemicals: Volume I, Large Production and Priority Pollutants. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 21
Howard, P.H., Ed. (1990) Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals: 22
Volume II, Solvents 2. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 23
Howard, P.H., Ed. (1993). Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic 24
Chemicals: Volume IV, Solvents and Chemical Intermediates. P.H. Howard, ed. Lewis Publishers, 25
Ann Arbor, MI. 26
Lindsey, K.A. (1996). The Miocene to Pliocene Ringold Formation and Associated Deposits of the 27
Ancestral Columbia River System, South-central Washington and North-central Oregon. Open File 28
Report 96-8, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth 29
Resources, Olympia, Washington. 30
Mackay, D., Shiu, W.Y., and Ma, K.C. (1992). Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties 31
and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals, Volume I: Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, 32
Chlorobenzenes, and PCB's. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. 33
Mackay, D., Shiu, W.Y., and Ma, K.C. (1992). Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties 34
and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals, Volume II: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, 35
Polychlorinated Dioxins, and Dibenzofurans. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. 36
PNL. (1992). PNL-9791. Estimation of the Release and Migration of Nickel Through Soils and 37
Groundwater at the Hanford Site 218-E-12B Burial Ground. Rhoads, K., Bjornstad, B.N., 38
Lewis, R.E., Teel, S.S., Cantrell, R.J., Serne, L.H., Smoot, J.L, Kincaid, C.T., and Wurstner, S.K., 39
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 40
PNNL. (1998). PNNL-11957. Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Site Borehole 299-E17-21. Reidel, S.P., 41
Reynolds, K.D., and Horton, D.G. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 42
PNNL. (1999). PNNL-12257, Rev. 1. Geologic Data Package for 2001 Immobilized Low-Activity 43
Waste Performance Assessment, Reidel, S.P. and Horton, D.G., Pacific Northwest National 44
Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 45
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.37
PNNL. (2000). PNNL-12261. Hydrogeology for the Suprabasalt Aquifer System, 200-East Area and 1
Vicinity, Hanford Site, Washington. Williams, B.A., Bjornstad, B.N., Schalla, R., and Webber, W.D. 2
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 3
PNNL. (2000). PNNL-13400. Groundwater Flow and Transport Calculations Supporting the 4
Immobilized Low-Activity Waste disposal Facility Performance Assessment. Bergeron, M.P. and 5
Wurstner, S.K., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 6
PNNL. (2000). PNNL-13404, Sections 1 of 2, 2 of 2. Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring for Fiscal 7
Year 2009. Hartman, M.J., Morasch, L.F., Webber, W.D., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 8
Richland, Washington. 9
PNNL. (2001). PNNL-13560. Assessment of Carbon Tetrachloride Groundwater Transport in Support 10
of the Hanford Carbon Tetrachloride Innovative Technology Demonstration Program. Truex, M.J., 11
Murray, C.J., Cole, C.R., Cameron, R.J., Johnson, M.D., Skeen, R.S., and Johnson, C.D. Pacific 12
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 13
PNNL. (2001). PNNL-13652. Geologic and Wireline Borehole Summary from the Second ILAW 14
Borehole (299-W24-21). Reidel, S.P., Horton, D.G., and Valenta, M.M. Pacific Northwest National 15
Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 16
PNNL. (2002). PNNL-13895. Hanford Contaminant Distribution Coefficient Database and User’s 17
Guide. Cantrell, K.J., Serne, R.J. and Last, G.V., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, 18
Washington. 19
PNNL. (2002). PNNL-14029. Geologic and Wireline Summaries from Fiscal Year 2002 ILAW 20
Boreholes. Reidel, S.P., and Ho, A.M., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, 21
Washington. 22
PNNL. (2003). PNNL-14187, Sections 1 of 2, 2 of 2. Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring for Fiscal 23
Year 2002. Hartman, M.J., Morasch, L.F., and Webber, W.D., Pacific Northwest National 24
Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 25
Reidel, S. P. and Fecht, K. R. (1994). Geologic Map of the Richland 1:100,000 Quadrangle, 26
Washington. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 94-8. 27
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 28
RHO. (1981). RHO-BWI-ST-14. Chapter 3, Wanapum and Saddle Mountains Basalts of the Cold Creek 29
Syncline Area. Reidel, S.P., and Fecht, K.R. In, Subsurface Geology of the Cold Creek Syncline. 30
Myers, C.W. and S.M. Price, editors, Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Washington. 31
RPP-6877. (2004). Integrated Disposal Facility Preoperational Monitoring Plan, Rev. 1, Horton, D.F., 32
Reidel, S.P., and Chien, Yi-Ju, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Bechtel Hanford, Inc., 33
Richland, Washington. 34
U. S. Geological Survey. (1977). National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water Data 35
Acquisition. Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, Virginia. Available at 36
http://pubs.usgs.gov/chapter11 37
WHC. (1989). WHC-MR-0008. Low-Level Burial Grounds Database. Poremba, B.E., Westinghouse 38
Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. 39
WHC. (1992). WHC-MR-0391. (1992). Field Trip Guide to the Hanford Site. Reidel, S.P., Lindsey, 40
K.A., and Fecht, K.R., Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. 41
WHC. (1993). WHC-SD-EN-TI-201. Screening Performance Assessment/Risk Assessment for the 42
Proposed Environment Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF), Westinghouse Hanford Company, 43
Richland, Washington. 44
WA7890008967
Integrated Disposal Facility
Chapter 5.38
WHC. (1999). WHC-SD-EN-AP-015. Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the 200 Areas Low-1
Level Burial Grounds, Last, G.V. and Bjornstad, B.N., Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, 2
Washington. 3
Grubbs, F.E. (February 1969). Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples, 4
Technometrics, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-21. 5
Ostle B., Malone L.C. (1988). Statistics in Research: Basic Concepts and Techniques for Research 6
Workers. 4th ed, Iowa State Press, ISBN 081381569X 7
Wilson, C. R., Einberger, C. M., Jackson, R. L., and Mercer, R. B. (1992). Design of Ground-Water 8
Monitoring Networks Using the Monitoring Efficiency Model (MEMO). Ground Water, Vol. 30, 9
pp. 965 - 970. 10
Zar, Jerrold, H. (1999). Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 360 – 388, 11
ISBN: 0131008463. 12